Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs M.M. Sharma on 21 February, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Madan Gopal Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 245/2020
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. District Collector, Rajsamand.
5. Deputy Secretary, Revenue (Group-Vi), Department
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
M.m. Sharma S/o Bhanwar Singh Sharma, R/o 1/3, Civil Lines,
Rajsamand.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with Mr.
Deepak Chandak & Mr. Rishi Soni.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS Order 21/02/2022 Though the case is listed for orders we find that there is long and unexplained delay of 1664 days in filing the appeal. In order to explain delay, all that has been stated in the application is as below:
"2. That it is humbly submitted that the copy of the order/judgment dated 08.01.2016 was obtained. Thereafter, Revenue Department (Group-7) Jaipur, had wrote a letter dated 07.10.2015, to District Collector, Rajsamand pertaining to file an appeal against the said order not. Thereafter District Collector had written a letter dated 28.10.2015 to Tehsildar, Rajsamand who is the Officer in Charge, pertaining to file an (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:21:15 AM) (2 of 6) [SAW-245/2020] appeal against the order dated 03.12.2014 or not?
3. That thereafter Tehsildar written a letter dated 27.11.2015 to Shri O P Boob Govt. Counsel for giving the advice in the said matter as to appeal can be filed against order dated 03.12.2014 or not.
4. That thereafter once again a letter dated 22.12.2015 was sent by Revenue Department, Group-7, Jaipur to District Collector in respect to present controversy asking as to appeal should be file in the present matter of not.
5. That once again District Collector had written a letter dated 19.01.2016 to Tehsildar, Rajsamand who is the Officer in Charge, with respect to filing of the file in the present matter.
6. That thereafter Shri O P Boob Govt. Counsel vide its letter dated 20.01.2016 addressing to District Collector, Rajsamand had apprise that the impugned judgment/order has been passed in reference to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court in the matter of Srikishan. Further the certified copy of the impugned order dated 03.12.2014 had been received on 11.01.2016.
7. That District Collector had written a letter dated 19.11.2016, 23.11.2015 & 11.01.2016 to Tehsildar, Rajsamand who is the Officer in Charge, with respect to filling of the file in the present matter.
8. That thereafter Tehsildar vide its letter dated 22.01.2016 had apprised the District Collector about the advice/opinion given by the Govt. Counsel and with copy of Srikishan judgment dated 10.10.2007 was also appraised.
9. That thereafter the Standing Committee in its meeting dated 30.05.2016 had taken a stand for not filing an appeal in the present matter.
10. That thereafter vide order dated 10.02.2010 of Administrative Reforms Department, wherein Standing Committee meeting was convened, presided over by Secretary Revenue and Colonisation Department and the decision to file an appeal in the said case was taken.
11. That thereafter a letter dated 01.10.2018 was sent to District Collector, Rajsamand by State Govt. Colonisation Department for filling an appeal in the said matter.
12. That thereafter a letter dated 12.10.2018 was sent/written by District Collector, Rajsamand to Officer in Charge Tehsildar, Rajsamand for appointing the Govt. Advocate in the present matter. Thereafter in the month of December, the Tehsildar was engaged by the State in (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:21:15 AM) (3 of 6) [SAW-245/2020] contesting the Election, so therefore the appeal could not be processed.
13. That thereafter vide letter dated 03.04.2019, Senior Assistant was given direction to go take instruction from Learned AAG for carrying out the fresh proceedings. Ultimately we have received instruction and a copy was served on 08.08.2019, were upon instruction was given to concern person to complete file and get the answers for the particular quires asked.
14. That, ultimately vide communication dated 22.08.2019 issued by District Collector, Rajsamand, wherein instruction were given to the office of AAG appearing for Colonisation Department for preparing file and contesting in the instant matter. The complete record of the case was provided in the office of AAG 26.08.2019. Thereafter the appeal was prepared in minimum possible reasonable time. Thus, the delay in filing the appeal is procedural and inadvertent one.
15. That under these circumstances, the delay occasioned in filing the instant appeal is an inadvertent one and is purely on account of procedural delay."
In two recent judicial pronouncement Hon'ble Supreme Court has depricated the practice of the delay on the part of the state authority in filing appeal after long delay as a result of indifference and indolent attitude on the part of the state authorities in dealing with files in their offices.
In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. V. Bherulal, 2020 SCC Online SC 849, it was found that the appeal filed by the State was with delay of 663 days. The cause shown for inordinate delay in that case was due to unavailability of documents and the process of arranging documents and also a reference to bureaucratic process works. In the aforesaid factual context, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision, observed as below:-
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:21:15 AM)(4 of 6) [SAW-245/2020] "3. No doubt, some leeway is given for the Government inefficiencies but the sad part is that the authorities keep on relying on judicial pronouncements for a period of time when technology had not advanced and a greater leeway was given to the Government (Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 2 SCC 107). This position is more than elucidated by the judgment of this Court in Office of the Chief Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 563 where the Court observed as under:
"12) It is not in dispute that the person(s) concerned were well aware or conversant with the issues involved including the prescribed period of limitation for taking up the matter by way of filing a special leave petition in this Court. They cannot claim that they have a separate period of limitation when the Department was possessed with competent persons familiar with court proceedings.
In the absence of plausible and acceptable explanation, we are posing a question why the delay is to be condoned mechanically merely because the Government or a wing of the Government is a party before us.
Though we are conscious of the fact that in a matter of condonation of delay when there was no gross negligence or deliberate inaction or lack of bonafide, a liberal concession has to be adopted to advance substantial justice, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances, the Department cannot take advantage of various earlier decisions. The claim on account of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology of making several notes cannot be accepted in view of the modern technologies being used and available. The law of limitation undoubtedly binds everybody including the Government.
13) In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural redtape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation (Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:21:15 AM) (5 of 6) [SAW-245/2020] offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay."
Eight years hence the judgment is still unheeded!"
In another decision, in the case of Government of Maharashtra (Water Resources Department) V. M/s. Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd., 2021 SCC Online SC 233 also, in the factual context of long delay of 75 days, the explanation was found to be short of any sufficient cause. The explanation in the aforesaid case was noted in para 65 of the said judgment as below -
"65. That apart, on the facts of this appeal, there is a long delay of 75 days beyond the period of 60 days provided by the Commercial Courts Act. Despite the fact that a certified copy of the District Court's judgment was obtained by the respondent on 27.04.2019, the appeal was filed only on 09.09.2019, the explanation for delay being:
"2. That, the certified copy of the order dated 01/04/2013 was received by the appellant on 27/04/2019. Thereafter the matter was placed before the CGM purchase MPPKVVCL for the compliance of the order. The same was then sent to the law officer, MPPKVVCL for opinion.
3. That after taking opinion for appeal, and approval of the concerned authorities, the officerin- charge was appointed vide order dated 23/07/2019.
4. That, thereafter due to bulky records of the case and for procurement of the necessary documents some delay has been caused however, the appeal has been prepared and filed to pursuant to the same and further delay.
5. That due to the aforesaid procedural approval and since the appellant is a public entity formed under the Energy department of the State Government, the delay caused in filing the appeal is bonafide and which deserve[s] to be condoned."(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:21:15 AM)
(6 of 6) [SAW-245/2020] However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not satisfied with the cause shown on the above lines and it was held as below :
"66. This explanation falls woefully short of making out any sufficient cause. This appeal is therefore allowed and the condonation of delay is set aside on this score also."
The cause shown in the application, if we may say so is bereft of any sufficient cause for such a long delay. Only on the ground of delay this appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J 18-a.asopa/-
(Downloaded on 23/02/2022 at 12:21:15 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)